Nell Segraves is a co-founder and an administrative assistant at
the Creation Science Research Center. She has been involved in the evaluation of science, social science and health textbooks for
approximately eighteen years.

Those of us involved in the Creationist Movement are not
at
tempting to legislate biblical creation into science classrooms.
Biblical creation is a belief that we hold, but we are no more ad
vocating our belief in the Scriptures as a science subject than is the
humanist advocating atheism as a subject for classroom discussion
in science. The Creation Science Research Center is not attempting
to introduce to public schools Bible stories or Bible verses. Neither
are the other established responsible Creationist organizations.
What we are advocating, rather, is the introduction into the
science classroom of scientific data which are currently being ex
cluded . . . namely, scientific data which conflict with the evolu
tionary theories of origin, and which are needed for the critical
evaluation of evolutionary theories as science. In conjunction with
this, we are advocating the introduction into science textbooks of
the scientific data which support the alternative explanation of
origins, namely, intelligent, purposeful design and special crea
tion. We are calling for reform in the teaching of science. Theories
in science must not be protected. They must be continually open to
critical evaluation. They must be thrown into open competition with alternate
explanations. This is how science advances to
bet
ter understanding of the natural world. If evolutionary theories are
to be studied in science classrooms, the current protectionist policy
must cease . . . in the name of good science, good education,
simple intellectual integrity.

The premise on which we base our need for alternative theories
is protection of religious beliefs. We use a legal premise under the
first and fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights Act in protection of creed. It is our understanding that
philosophical belief systems constitute a religious or a creed position. Creed, as defined in the dictionary, can represent political as
well as religious points of view. The Supreme Court, in the deci
sions on Bible reading and prayer, ruled out any recognition of any
particular religious point of view and pointed out that secular
humanism is equally religious as an orthodox religious belief. At
torney General Stanley Moss said that the neutrality requirements
of the State and Federal Constitutions require the State of Califor
nia to balance philosophical belief systems, and that atheist,
agnostic and irreligious beliefs would be equally unconstitutional.
The penalties for prescribing or advocating an atheist, agnostic or
irreligious belief system would be the loss of the license of the
teacher or the loss of State aid to the school, in exactly the same
way that you would discipline a teacher for advocating Christianity or a particular
religious point of view hat the schools are for
bidden from doing is indoctrinating a particular philosophical
system or belief. What they can do is teach about all points of
view, giving recognition and respect for alternative points of view.

The fact that the Creationists have gone a second mile and
presented alternative scientific theories and explanations for
origins is simply the frosting on the cake. We don't owe the educa
tional system good science. We only require them to recognize
alternative belief systems. It has been charged that we are trying to
legislate into science classrooms theories that would not be sup
ported in science. It is our contention that this is what has already
been done by the humanist and the evolutionist ... that they have
legislated into the science classrooms a particular point of view,
mandating that every student adhere to it and making their grades
dependent upon it. In years past, teachers could not even be hired
if they did not adhere to this doctrinaire position. When we first
began our studies, those scientists that are now part of the Crea
tion Research Society were fearful of identifying themselves as not
adhering to the evolutionary system for fear they would be fired.
They could not achieve their Doctorate if they did not adhere to
that point of view. We contend that is not science. That is scientism, and a religion. When we have asked the Board of Education
to open up the science curriculum and subject evolution to falsification, we have been denied the privilege of criticizing it, or
bringing into the classroom evidence that would tend to militate against it or falsify it. We contend that is not science instruction
... That is religious indoctrination into a particular belief system taught at
tax expense. It violates the neutrality re quirements of our State Constitution, puts the State in the position of having adopted a particular religion of secular humanism, the State prescribing it and forcing every student to adhere to it. And that is why the Creationist Movement is so active today.

Fred Jappe is a member of the Department of Physical Sciences at
Mesa College. He teaches chemistry and also science and religion. He received his B.A. degree from the University of Washington
and has done graduate studies at San Diego State University and Seattle University.

As a Christian and as a Baptist, I respond
to the stated question with alternative explanations. with a resounding, "No". The Baptist position since before the time of Roger Williams has been one of belief in separation of Church and State. Let me quote just two of twelve arguments from Roger Williams written in 1644.

"Firstly, all Civil states with their officers of justice in their respective constitutions and administrations are proved essentially Civil
and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual or
Christian state of worship."

That was an acknowledgement on the part of Baptists that the
State is secular.

"Sixthly, it is the will and command of God that a permission of
paganism or anti-Christian conscience or worship be granted to all
men and that they be fought against only with the Word of God."

Baptists have continued to argue this position. My own Convention (Southern Baptist) has, for "ample, consistently argued
against prayer in public schools. I believe, as a Christian, that this
position is correct. Religion, as well as the State, suffers when this
wall of separation is breached. Religion in general, and Judaism
and Christianity in particular, would suffer from legislation of this
sort. It is harmful to religious values to have them taught by the
non-religious. To do so is to profane that which is holy. The gospel
of Jesus Christ does not need secular help. By extension, neither
does Genesis I or 2. Neither, of course, should religion be hindered
by the State. I do not expect the Hindus' belief in vegetarianism,
the Buddhist's belief in reincarnation, the Orthodox Jewish belief
in the infallibility of Genesis I and 2, or the Christians' belief in
the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus Christ to be the object
of ridicule by the State.

We also should not legislate biblical creationism into the schools
because of the lack of agreement as to what that term means. It is
true that Christians and Jews share much in common on the importance of Creation as an idea, but there is a widespread disagreement as to how God carried out his creative acts. A friend of mine,
Jerry Albert, who has a PhD in biochemistry and is a Christian
member of a Missouri-Synod Lutheran Church (not noted for its
liberalism), debated Dr, Duane Gish, who also possesses a PhD in
biochemistry, and is another fine Christian. They debated under
the auspices of Fuller Theological Seminary, one of America's orthodox schools. Dr. Albert argued for theistic evolution, the idea
that evolution took place as described by the biologists, but under
God's direction. Dr. Albert argued that no Christian doctrine
creedal statement was threatened by evolution. I have also had Dr.
Gish and other speakers from both the Creation Science Research
Society and the Institute for Creation Research speak to my
science and religion classes. I have found them to be warm, honest,
sincere Christians, but they reflect a much different point of view,
the view of
fiat
creation and a young earth. I also know Dr. Bernard Ramn, who is a progressive creationist, a view which fits
somewhere in between the views of Dr. Albert and Dr. Gish. In
fact I'm confident that Christians hold to literally all possible
views on how God did it. I personally have reached the conclusion
that the question, "How?", is best answered by the scientist. As a
Christian, I do, of course, affirm that God is the maker of heaven
and earth. A study of Christian theology also reveals a full spectrum of ideas as to how God created, I therefore oppose trying to
legislate Biblical Creationism, because not all views could possibly
get a hearing, which is manifestly unfair to those left out.

I oppose trying to legislate Biblical Creationism into schools also
because it directs Christians from their main task of witnessing by
their lives to Christ's love and redemption, and misdirects monies
and energies that, I believe, could be better spent elsewhere. Christianity centers in Christ, his life, his death, his resurrection. It does
not center in Genesis I and 2. Activities that divert either group
from their central theme hurts their witness. My personal experience has been that attempts to legislate Biblical Creationism do
not further the Gospel, but, indeed, hinder it by making people
believe that one must choose between belief in evolution or belief
in God.

I oppose trying to legislate Biblical Creationism into public
schools because I believe it is based on a false understanding of
science, Evolution is a theory. At the present time, it is the
glorious all pervasive theory of biology. But if biology follows path of other sciences, astronomy, physics, and chemistry, it
see this theory change and most likely even be replaced by
theories. Science is self-correcting, partly, I'm sure, because theories are subject to scrutiny by all members of its
community. The scientist is not generally anti-God. His task is to understand
how the material universe works. As a Christian, to paraphrase
Kant, I would suggest that we cannot help but be filled with awe
we study the heavens above, or the feedback mechanisms of enzymes within, as well as experiencing the need for values for
racial judgments.

I oppose legislating Biblical Christianity into schools because is
do so would interfere with the prophetic voice of the Church by tying its interests to that of the State. An important aspect of
Judaism and Christianity is the need to speak out against the
wrongs of the State, whether in the fields of war, censorship.
nuclear power, abortion, the abuse of the poor, or the lack of
medical facilities. By demanding special privileges for our doctrines we lose the ability to speak out on critical issues, and
speak out, we must.

Lastly, I oppose trying to legislate the teaching of Biblical Creationism into schools because I don't think the legislators could do
it properly. I work as a grievance chairperson and use the Stale
education code a lot. Anyone who has read that mass of redundant
inconsistency could not possibly be in favor of having that group
of legislators write or prescribe anything they were in favor of.

Bette Chambers is President Emeritus of the American Humanist
Association. She did extensive biological studies at the University
of Washington, Sacramento State University, Humboldt State College, and Eastern Washington State College, emphasizing
primarily the zoological sciences.

Dr. Jappe has already defined the various kinds of
creationisn.
The way in which I use the term Creationism is the extreme evolutionist point of view which holds to a belief in a young eart h.
six to ten thousand years old, to the necessity for a universal deluge
and to a relative fixity of species. In all the states in the USA
(over the last dozen years or so there have been about twenty
them), which have had Bills in their state legislatures to mandate
the teaching of Creationism in the schools, these have been
points of view behind the individuals who lobbied for and wrote
the model Bills. Theistic evolutionists are those who believe that
God directs the course of evolution toward a goal and purpose
none of the organizations representing that form of theistic evolution or evolutionary theism are in fact part of the political struggle
to get Creationism mandated in the public schools.

I, of course, take the negative in the present question. My
reason for doing so is that evolution theory is not mandated.
only mandates of Congress, and in the State of California, u
the California Constitution and the State Education Code, reaquires
merely that a modern and up to date education in the sciences
provided for the children in the public schools. Decisions regard
ing textbook adoption are left to the State Board of Education
to local districts.

Creationism is a strictly religious point of view vigorously sup
ported by some religious persons and sects, and as vigorously
posed by other religious persons and sects, almost all of
broadly Judaeo-Christian. The arguments favoring mandating
Creationism have been dealt with by the courts and judicial bodies
over the last decade to fifteen years; they have ruled consistently so
far that Creationism is religious and has no place in the science
curriculum of a public school. One of these citations is: the California State Attorney General's opinion, April 2, 1975. Again
in Burston vs Wilson, United States Supreme Court, Mr. Justice
Clark stated in 1952, "The State has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them."

The claim has been made that teaching evolutionary biology is a
religion in itself, which is offensive to the beliefs of the fiat Creationists, hence, in violation of both the establishment and the free
exercise clause of the First Amendment. The courts have never
agreed that evolutionary biology is a religious view. However, in
the Amish case, the ruling of the Supreme Court notes the existence of remedies for religious objectors. The State maintains a
high interest in a creditable education in the sciences for a majority
and provides exemption or the choice of a parochial education for
objectors. In Daniel vs Waters, the Tennessee case in 1975 which
struck down an equal time for Creationism proposal similar to
those in other states, the Court for the Sixth District in Tennessee
held: "There is, and can be no doubt that the First Amendment
does not require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the
principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma."

Again I affirm the negative because the allegation of fiat Creationists that evolution is a religion, the religion of humanism, is
false. I don't know of anyone better equipped to speak to this
point than myself, as past President of the American Humanist
Association and a member of its Board of Directors for the past
eighteen years. Creationists claim widely that evolution is a tenet
or a creed of Secular Humanism or Humanism. All of the current
State legislative Bills rest on this allegation. It is claimed that
evolution is a tenet of Humanism, that Humanism is a religion,
and that therefore it should not be taught in science classes lest it
violate the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the
First Amendment. These statements are false for the following
reasons. Neither the State or the Federal Government nor its
judiciary may define the mission of a church or define the beliefs of any faith.
Only the adherents of a faith may do that, or its
authorized leaders or both, as is the democratic tradition within
humanism. The American Humanist Association is this nation's
largest humanist organization. It's structure provides that its
leaders and its members alone define the meaning of Humanism in
its late twentieth century variety of expression. Evolutionary
theory is not a tenet, creed, or required belief for membership in
the American Humanist Association. It never has been and it never
will be. No Humanist applying for membership need pass an
evolutionary belief litmus test nor need even know anything about
evolutionary theory.

The fact that most Humanists accept evolutionary theory as well
established in science is of no more importance than the
demonstrable fact that large numbers of Protestants, Catholics
and Jews also accept evolutionary- theory as well established in
science. To illustrate this let me remark about two cases: in Dallas
in the month of April, 1977, when the Dallas Independent School
District adopted one of the Creationist texts by the name of,
Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, published by Zondervan Publishing Company, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish
clergy organized an opposition to the adoption of it. Of the
signatories, a statement was produced declaring: "The principal
reason for our objection is that this textbook is expressly and
avowedly organized in terms of sectarian religious beliefs." Again
on January 27, 1980, in the city of Atlanta thirty-nine of the
religious leaders of the Atlanta Ministerial Association representing Congregational, Episcopalian, Jewish, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Unitarian bodies petitioned the Georgia House of Representatives to oppose the so-called House Bill #690, which was
narrowly defeated in the State of Georgia not by a vote, but by a motion to adjourn sine die. They opposed this Bill which would have
mandated the Equal Time Theory, the Young Earth Theory, the
Noachian Flood Theory, and the Fixity of Species Theory. They
opposed this on the grounds that it was the establishment of
dogma in the schools, and, again, there was not a Humanist
among them.

Allegations that evolutionary theory is a tenet or creedal belief
peculiar to and almost limited to Secular Humanism is denied by
Humanist leaders and members who alone define the tenets and
beliefs of the Humanist faith. Allegations to the contrary come
almost exclusively from the extreme minority wing of fundamentalist Protestantism and from pressure groups interorbital with
right wing fundamentalist groups.

The inverse allegation that all evolutionists are atheists and that
evolution is atheistic is common only to the publications of fiat
Creationist groups: even such remarkable statements as "no Christian can be an evolutionist". Thus, the claim that evolution is a
religion, the religion of Humanism, is refuted. Inasmuch as this
issue is pivotal to the success of any legislative act or court case in
which this view is argued, it fails.

Ray MenegusRay Menegus is a member of the Department of Physical Sciences
at Mesa College. He teaches classes in physics and also in science
and religion. He has his B.S. degree from Stevens Institute of
Technology in New Jersey, and has done graduate work at t e
University of California, San Diego.

As a Christian, a scientist, and an educator I too answer the
question with a "No". Biblical Creation should not be legislated
into our schools, but neither should we legislate it out. The real
problem we have is how we can best serve the educational needs of
our children. The controversy that has been raised between creationism and evolution over the last hundred years has really come
about because of a misunderstanding of the philosophical foundations of science, the methods of science, and what science really
has to say.

To begin with, neither creation nor evolution are scientific
theories. Science has very rigid standards as to what it accepts as a
theory. The method of science is the method of observation and
experimentation with the so-called facts of science that scientists
call data. In order for data to be admissable into science there are
basically three criteria. The first criterion is that the data must be
observable; the observations must also be recordable for retrieval
and comparison with later data. The data arp then accumulated into laws and the laws become fixtures ui science: for example, the
relationship between the pressure of a gas and its temperature
...
But the laws in themselves do not constitute a theory. In order
for a scientist to come up with a theory, there has to be a creative
component. Many scientific theories are developed partly by imagination and sometimes accidents, but the theory itself is a way of
organizing the laws and the data into a comprehensive scheme.

Theories must satisfy four basic criteria. First, they should be in
agreement with the data. Second, there should be internal consistency between the laws and the data themselves. Thirdly, and
very importantly, they should have the ability to produce
understanding of the laws that hitherto were not necessarily completely understood. And fourthly, they should propose
new hypotheses which could be tested by experiment. A theory that has
no test, and cannot be in principal falsified, does not constitute a
scientific theory. This means for example, that creation is not a
theory because it cannot predict any new events which are testable
by experiment. But neither is evolution a theory, because evolution
cannot predict what new species are going to be, and evolution
cannot be falsified. You open a typical biology book and you'll see
a tree of evolution. If, for example, scientists were to dig up new
fossils that disagreed with parts of the tree, the evolutionists would
just rearrange the branches. Evolution in principal is not
falsifiable, it cannot predict anything new, and it does not even
correlate the data very well. However, creation and evolution are
paradigms of science: they are ways of looking at the data and interpreting the data. Since neither evolution nor creation are scientific theories, it is my proposal that both paradigms be allowed to
be taught in public schools. Ideally, the instructor would allow for
discussion from both perspectives and this would encourage
critical thinking on the part of the students rather than promoting
lazy, closed-minded intellects, which are detrimental to the educational process.

I would like to explore some of the consequences that we face if
we allow only evolution to be taught in
OUT
schools. What has
made science great is the fact that it has proceeded on an unproven
assumption: the assumption of reductionism. If we assume that
evolution has occurred, then we can say that therefore biology and
living systems can be explained in terms of chemistry, and that
chemistry can, in turn, be explained in terms of physics. The hope
of biological evolutionists is to completely explain human behavior
and everything about the universe simply in terms of the laws of
physics. That is reductionism, the basic assumption that evolutionists proceed by and that has led to many developments in
science.

A famous evolutionist, Albert Szent Gy6rgyi A Nobel Prize winning biologist for his work in the discovery and work in vitamin A,
says " In my hunt for the secret of life, I started my search in
histology. Unsatisfied by information that cellular morphology
could give me about life I turned to physiology. Finding
physiology too complex, I took up pharmacology. Still finding the
situation too complicated I turned to bacteriology. But bacteria
were even too complex, so I descended to the molecular level
studying chemistry and physical chemistry. After twenty years of
work I was led to conclude that to understand life we have to descend to the electronic level and to the world of wave mechanics.
But electrons are just electrons and have no life at all. Evidently,
along the way, I lost life. It had run out between my fingers." One
of the grave implications of teaching solely evolution in our public
schools is that by proceeding with an evolutionary reductionistic
ethic, life is reduced simply to the meaning of an electron. But an
electron has no inherent meaning. One electron is the same as all
electrons. One electron has no life, no consciousness. Therefore,
our children are being programmed and indoctrinated to the belief
that they, themselves, have no meaning.

Another aspect of reductionism is that the whole can be
understood in terms of the sum of its parts. But what I've tried to
show is that we cannot understand life and the processes of life in
terms of simply the physics of an electron. Scientists are now
beginning to realize that the whole is greater than the sum of its
parts, that reductionism, has failed, and that, in fact, it has left
residues, unexplained assumptions, and ad hoc assumptions all
along the way.

Teaching only evolution in our public schools is detrimental to
the educational process. The most beneficial thin that we can do
for our children is to teach both sides of the question, since le
are scientific theories, but are rather belief systems. Since th.J1
tion of origins has plagued man since time immemorial, the
way we can serve the educational needs of our students is to
both Creation and Evolution, leaving it up to the discretion of
instructor.

Robert BallRobert Ball is a member of the Department of Biology at Diego Mesa College, and is responsible for
teaching courses in the field of biology, He received his Bachelor's Degree
from San Diego State University, and has done graduate work
at the University of California as well as San Diego State University.
The question, "Should Biblical Creationism be legislated in
public schools?" is not the real issue. This question has air
been answered by the California Attorney General in 1975, w
he stated that religious beliefs may be discussed in public sch
provided they "do not constitute instruction in religious principals
or aid any religious sect, church, creed or sectarian purpose." And
I further doubt that many protagonists of the evolutionary theory
would object to the advent of creationism in the classroom.
real question is under what guise it should be presented-as a true
science or as a religious philosophy? This question leads us to
separate theses that the creationists would like us to believe:
that the creation theory which parallels Biblical Creationism
scientifically oriented and sound; and (2) that evolutionary th
and its model systems are based on a set of philosophical be
and therefore it, in itself, is also categorically a religion. The
statement allows for the legislation of a fundamentalist
system masquerading as science into public schools. The se
position allows for the removal of an albatross from the neck
fundamentalists, by removing evolutionary biology from the curriculum of science classes. This, in fact, would be the accomplish
ment of an old political goal through a new tactic: the transmuta
tion of a theological concept into science, and of a scientific concept into religious philosophy, once again, drawing the creation/
evolution issue back into the political arena.

There is an inherent danger in this approach. Can such questions
as "Is the creationist philosophy a religious minority position or
true science?", be answered by a scientifically lay group such
the state legislature, or state and local school boards without
necessary backgrounds of experience? What does the lesson
Russian Lysenkoism, teach us about science and politics? If
scientific community acknowledges that evolutionary biology
been derived from scientific empiricism, then we must also ask
scientific creationist to acknowledge, for the sake of intellectual
honesty, that the origin of the creationist hypothesis is the lit
interpretation of Genesis. Both models could then be investigation
and verified or rejected by the scientific method. It would
therefore be apparent that the creationist account of origins,
well as other statements within Genesis that have biological ap
plications, must come under the scrutiny of scientific examination
if it is to be included within the framework of science. Until this is
done, it is not rationally possible to present creationism within a
science class. If scientific creationism is presented honestly it
becomes a religion. If it is presented in the light of its biblical
origin then it becomes historically and scholastically fallible. Creationism is a concept whose origin is in a philosophical belief system
that has no possibility of empirical examination. Evolutionary
biology, on the other hand, is a concept born out of scientific data,
whose origin was within the context of the scientific method. The
scientific method is a process which sets the limits within scientific
investigation. If evolutionary theory is wrong, it will be ultimately
be lost to science through the integrity of the constraints of the
scientific method.

The creationists want a two model system, i.e., evolution and
creationism in science classes. They declare, "it is not the introduction of the Bible or biblical stories about creation into the science
books or classroom." and "It is a fair and balanced presentation
of the evidence and arguments both pro and con relative to both
models and origins." In addition to this emotional approach to the
inclusion of scientific creationism in science classes they also have
a series of textbooks and pamphlets put out by the Creation
Science Research Center. Examples of such books entitled, Scientific Creationism, and Evolution? The Fossils say 'No', are
nothing more than polemical attacks on evidences for evolution;
the Center wants these textbooks as reference texts for creationism
within the classroom. A book recently written by Moore and
Schlusher, two creationists, is an example of a text reported to be
objective, scientific and non-sectarian, entitled, Biology-A
Search for Order and Complexity. It is permeated with statements
advancing the notion that, in fact, scientific creationism and
Biblical Creationism are, in fact, one and the same. The book was
recently rejected for use in the school system in Indiana by the Indiana Superior Court. The court's verdict was an embarrassing
judicial expose of the thrust of modern day creationism. The court
declared, "clearly the purpose of a Search for Order and Complexity is the
promotion and inclusion of fundamentalist Christian
doctrine in the public schools. Any doubt to the text's fairness is
dispelled by the demand for correct Christian answers as instructed
in the Teachers' Guide. The prospect of biology teachers and
students alike forced to answer and respond to correct fundamentalist Christian doctrines has no place in the public schools." If
one examines the creationists' literature, it becomes clear that what
they really want to do is critique evolution. Science, by the way,
already does that.

In fact, the creationists have no scientific model. Should the
basic tenets of fundamentalist creation hypothesis be taught in
public schools? Why not? But not as science, not as a mandated
curriculum, but within a framework of elective courses dealing
with comparative religious thought about origins. There is no
reason to curtail the various biblical and religious accounts of creation of creationism if they are approached within a proper
theological and epistemological system. Such a course would be
theologically sound and be presented within an academically
honest environment.

It is apparent, though, that the fundamental philosophical issue
of this whole question is still the argument of evolution versus
creation despite the appeal for democratic fairness, that is, equal
time for the creationist point of view. In summary, there are at
least six main reasons why Biblical Creationism, which is in effect,
scientific creationism, should not be taught in science classes: (1)
creationism is unscientific; (2) creationism forces the rejection of observations and data that contradict
it . . . data ranging from
molecular genetics to geology; (3) creationism constitutes a
religiously mandated minority position; (4) scientific creationism is
deceptive in the sense that no scientific research has been published
supporting a creationist model, that is, there is no creationist
model, only a restatement of biblical creation; (5) teacher training
in the sciences does not prepare them for the presentation of
theological materials; and (6) the teaching of creationism is illegal.

I would like to close with an idea that has been recognized within
the philosophical framework of many Christians: when our faith
becomes dependent upon scientific proof, we can never be sure
and secure, and therefore we will always need more proof. We will
always be afraid of every unknown or unfamiliar situation, including the advances brought on by expanding scientific
knowledge, because we will always feel the need to defend such
faith by finding fault with the expanding science. It is the difference between believing facts about God and his world and
trusting in God and his world. The first kind of belief requires
tangible empirical evidence, while the other involves a trust coming
from the Holy Spirit working within our hearts.